NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming
Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution
From the Daily Tech, Michael Andrews. (h/t to Joe D’Aleo)
Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes. They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation. Skeptics, though, argue that there’s little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.
[NOTE: there is evidence of solar impact on the surface temperature record, as Basil Copeland and I discovered in this report published here on WUWT titled Evidence of a Lunisolar Influence on Decadal and Bidecadal Oscillations In Globally Averaged Temperature Trends – Anthony]
Solar activity has shown a major spike in the twentieth century, corresponding to global warming. This cyclic variation was acknowledged by a recent NASA
study, which reviewed a great deal of past climate data. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth’s climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.
Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle’s peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center,
“Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene.”
Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes,
“The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth’s global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum. The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012.”
According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth’s outermost atmosphere. Periods of more intense activity brought 1.3 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.
While the NASA study acknowledged the sun’s influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.
The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA’s own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past. And even the study’s members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.
NOTE: for those that wish to see the original NASA Goddard article which sparked both the Daily Tech and Science Daily news stories referenced above, you can read it here:
http://erc.ivv.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_variability.html
– Anthony
bill (21:21:46) :
Ron de Haan (20:21:51) :
Try this for a bit of debunk!
http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf
Bill,
Damon&Laut made a critical report in the same trend as the recent publication of a warming Antarctic. It was based on BS (Bad Science).
You can find Svensmarks response to the Damon&Laut paper here:
http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/research/sun-climate/full_text_publications/comment%20to%20eos_28_sept_04.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (09:18:22) :
Nasif Nahle (17:24:10) :
And we will be running around the ring, again… I mean, all that stuff regarding iron stained quartz and intensity of solar irradiance, etc.
As before, you are still confusing solar irradiance with solar insolation. Irradiance is what the Sun puts out, insolation is what a particular location receives. E.g. the poles have less insolation for same irradiance.
Well… Put it this way:
“And we will be running around the ring, again… I mean, all that stuff regarding iron stained quartz and intensity of incident solar irradiance on the soil, etc. ” 🙂
Nasif Nahle (09:46:24) :
“And we will be running around the ring, again… I mean, all that stuff regarding iron stained quartz and intensity of incident solar irradiance on the soil, etc. ”
Repeating your confusion does not make it go away. What you are describing is ‘insolation’ not irradiance. If you are quoting from a paper without understanding it, the paper is wrong or sloppy in its wording.
For example, in July the solar insolation would be 7% higher than the solar irradiance [what the Sun puts out – the Sun does not know about July], and the integrated insolation at the location where the grain is depends on the length of the seasons, i.e. Milankovich cycles, which has nothing to do with the Sun.
Leif Svalgaard (10:27:36) :
For example, in July the solar insolation would be 7% higher
lower, of course.
Leif Svalgaard (10:27:36) :
Nasif Nahle (09:46:24) :
“And we will be running around the ring, again… I mean, all that stuff regarding iron stained quartz and intensity of incident solar irradiance on the soil, etc. ”
Repeating your confusion does not make it go away. What you are describing is ‘insolation’ not irradiance. If you are quoting from a paper without understanding it, the paper is wrong or sloppy in its wording.
For example, in July the solar insolation would be 7% higher than the solar irradiance [what the Sun puts out – the Sun does not know about July], and the integrated insolation at the location where the grain is depends on the length of the seasons, i.e. Milankovich cycles, which has nothing to do with the Sun.
I know perfectly the difference between solar irradiance and insolation, so don’t tell me again I confuse the terms.
7% lower… Insolation is lower than TSI considering the angle of incidence, the density of the atmospheric layers that blocks the Earth from solar radiation, and the total amount of radiation emitted by the Sun which hits the boundary layers of the atmosphere. Anyway, the solar irradiance is not always the same, i.e. the solar output of energy is not constant. That’s why we talk about space weather.
Nasif Nahle (11:03:58) :
Insolation is lower than TSI considering the angle of incidence, the density of the atmospheric layers that blocks the Earth from solar radiation, and the total amount of radiation emitted by the Sun which hits the boundary layers of the atmosphere.
What the iron grains see is the insolation, not the irradiance. That is what this is about. You keep claiming that they see the irradiance and they simply do not.
Nasif Nahle (11:03:58) :
Anyway, the solar irradiance is not always the same, i.e. the solar output of energy is not constant. That’s why we talk about space weather.
Space weather has little or nothing to do with solar irradiance per se. Space weather is not sensitive to just the total solar energy output, but to other things, the most important one being the orientation of the magnetic field.
@Leif… Believe it or not, the correlation between the decadal TSI variation from 1880 to 1889 and 1890-1899, considering your database on TSI, and the decadal variation of temperature from Loehle’s database is 1. I’m analyzing the remainder decades, but I cannot mathematically dismiss the effect of solar irradiance on Earth’s climate. On the other hand, the correlation for the same decades obtained from Lean’s old database on TSI is 0.86, which is lower than considering your database.
Leif Svalgaard (11:38:29) :
Nasif Nahle (11:03:58) :
Anyway, the solar irradiance is not always the same, i.e. the solar output of energy is not constant. That’s why we talk about space weather.
Space weather has little or nothing to do with solar irradiance per se. Space weather is not sensitive to just the total solar energy output, but to other things, the most important one being the orientation of the magnetic field.
The orientation of the magnetic field, the intensity of solar wind, the speed of solar wind, the amount of matter dragged by the solar wind, scintillation, solar and geomagnetic storms, the flow of charged particles, the energy carried by particles, etc.
Nasif Nahle (11:46:08) :
“Space weather has little or nothing to do with solar irradiance per se.” […] etc.
Again, space weather has little or nothing to do with solar luminosity [irradiance]. The energy flow of the solar wind hitting the Earth is the kinetic energy of one hamburger per second, so many orders of magnitude down from TSI it matters not a whit.
Nasif Nahle (11:40:44) :
@Leif… Believe it or not, the correlation between the decadal TSI variation from 1880 to 1889 and 1890-1899, considering your database on TSI, and the decadal variation of temperature from Loehle’s database is 1.
The decadal value is the average over ten years, so from 1880-1889 is one data point, and from 1890-1899 is another data point. The correlation between two data points [with two data points of Loehle temps] is always 1, so not so amazing.
“The energy flow of the solar wind hitting the Earth is the kinetic energy of one hamburger per second”
Umm, what speed and mass of hamburger are we assuming?
But I really have to ask,
Who threw it?
Leif Svalgaard (12:12:56) :
Again, space weather has little or nothing to do with solar luminosity [irradiance]. The energy flow of the solar wind hitting the Earth is the kinetic energy of one hamburger per second, so many orders of magnitude down from TSI it matters not a whit.
Space weather has much to do with solar flares and CME: solar magnetic fields depend on the load of charged particles ejected; the same is valid for the intensity of solar irradiance, so space weather and TSI diverge by a hair’s breadth…
O.T
L.S. The Friday effect etc, has set my whiskers twitching not least because I have seen this before in another field. Also I think I now grasp why you are uneasy in your mind.
Unfortunately my ex colleague, also retired, who knows a lot more about this than I do is in the Antipodes visiting family for the next few weeks: but when he comes back we will put our heads together and see whether we can offer anything useful.
Kindest Regards
Sandy (12:30:03) :
I think my previous post answers your question.
Leif Svalgaard (12:15:26) :
Nasif Nahle (11:40:44) :
@Leif… Believe it or not, the correlation between the decadal TSI variation from 1880 to 1889 and 1890-1899, considering your database on TSI, and the decadal variation of temperature from Loehle’s database is 1.
The decadal value is the average over ten years, so from 1880-1889 is one data point, and from 1890-1899 is another data point. The correlation between two data points [with two data points of Loehle temps] is always 1, so not so amazing.
I didn’t expect you get amazed. I’ll redraw the work considering the annual averages, although I don’t think it would change a lot; for example, for the average from 2007 to 2008 the correlation is 1, also.
JamesG (03:03:32):
Anyone quoting Damon and Laut needs to be made aware that Lassen replied to Damon and Laut’s gross slanders, though abnormally it wasn’t allowed to be published alongside the DL’s so-called rebuttal, which would have been the normal procedure for a journal that claims to be scientific.
It seems, I’ve not evidence besides I ran the same experience than Svensmark, RC was conceived to deceive its readers. It follows the pattern of religious sermons where one cannot reply to any of their allegations.
Nasif Nahle (12:35:09) :
Space weather has much to do with solar flares and CME: solar magnetic fields depend on the load of charged particles ejected; the same is valid for the intensity of solar irradiance, so space weather and TSI diverge by a hair’s breadth…
Completely wrong. Right now there are no flares and no CMEs, yet TSI is within 0.1% of what it was at solar maximum. The energy in the solar wind is minuscule compared to that of TSI and are in different forms and are like oranges [very very small ones, only visible though a microscope] and apples [huge ones]. But you are avoiding the issue: how do the iron grains measure the TSI outside of the Earth’s atmosphere?
Leif Svalgaard (13:21:32) :
Nasif Nahle (12:35:09) :
Space weather has much to do with solar flares and CME: solar magnetic fields depend on the load of charged particles ejected; the same is valid for the intensity of solar irradiance, so space weather and TSI diverge by a hair’s breadth…
Completely wrong.
Whaaaat? Are you saying space weather is independent of CME and solar flares?
Right now there are no flares and no CMEs, yet TSI is within 0.1% of what it was at solar maximum. The energy in the solar wind is minuscule compared to that of TSI and are in different forms and are like oranges [very very small ones, only visible though a microscope] and apples [huge ones]. But you are avoiding the issue: how do the iron grains measure the TSI outside of the Earth’s atmosphere?
I’m not discussing the amount of energy carried by the solar wind compared with the load of energy of TSI. I’m talking about the dependence of each one on solar flares and CME. If the Sun sprouts a solar flare it’s obvious the TSI would increase.
Regarding the correlation between TSI and the quantity and quality of iron stained grains, consider that even when the iron stained grains are proxies for calculating insolation, the intensity of the incident solar radiation on the ground surface increases if the solar radiation increases from the Sun (TSI), so the production of iron stained grains. Especially, when considering that the geomagnetic field also experiences changes through time.
Peter Plail (13:34:14) :
Ron de Haan’s comment earlier about microbes got me thinking – is there any evidence that the reduction of anthropogenic CO2 during the 20’s in the US due to the prohibition of alcoholic beverages (hence no fermentation products from alcohol brewing) had any effect on temperatures?
Maybe this could solve the problem now – perhaps the west should ban alcohol and leavened bread. Should play well in the Middle East 🙂
Peter,
Very funny.
We all know more alcohol was produced during the prohibition than before.
What wonders me is the fact that people today have an uncontroleble urge for banning all kinds of things.
But I am glad I’ve got you thinking.
Sandy (12:30:03) :
Umm, what speed and mass of hamburger are we assuming?
But I really have to ask,
Who threw it?
A ‘quarterpounder TM McDonald’s’ moving at the speed of the solar wind. One could quibble that the target of the hamburger shouldn’t be the Earth, but the Magnetosphere [with a hundred times the cross section] but then only a fraction [less than a tenth] of that impacts the Earth. The important thing is to get a feeling for the magnitudes involved.
Nasif Nahle (13:41:34) :
If the Sun sprouts a solar flare it’s obvious the TSI would increase.
The increase is so minute that it is almost unobservable. Only one or two of the strongest X-ray flares have been barely observed ever to have a tiny effect on TSI: http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/Chree_Analysis_for_Flares
the intensity of the incident solar radiation on the ground surface increases if the solar radiation increases from the Sun (TSI), so the production of iron stained grains.
The orbital effects on insolation would be the bigger effect and climate as well. With many clouds [especially at high latitudes] climate itself may be an even bigger influence on the insolation, and last buy not least, the TSI changes are so minute that they cannot be observed with the error expected for the grain analysis. So, again, for the umpteenth time, you have not shown that anybody can measure TSI with the precision required from the iron grains. If you can, I’ll recommend that NASA don’t put up any more satellites to measure TSI, I’ll keep a few grains in my backyard and send them the resulting high-quality data in real time.
Especially, when considering that the geomagnetic field also experiences changes through time.
which has nothing to do with TSI either, but may introduce noise in the iron grain data to mask whatever minute solar signal you claim there is.
Leif Svalgaard (12:12:56) :
“The energy flow of the solar wind hitting the Earth is the kinetic energy of one hamburger per second, so many orders of magnitude down from TSI it matters not a whit.”
From a macroscopic POV that is essentially correct,however One of the peculiar aspects of complex systems is the possibility of observing phenomena at two levels as it were. One on the surface level when the phenomena take place under small variation from the certain steady state external conditions (the solar cycle),and the second level ie the deep molecular level where changes of the conditions of the system are significant.
Eg
Zubov, V., E. Rozanov, A. Shirochkov, L. Makarova, T. Egorova, A. Kiselev, Y. Ozolin, I. Karol, and W. Schmutz, Influence of Solar Wind on Ozone and Circulation in the Middle Atmosphere: A Model Study, Transactions of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Abstract. A Chemistry-Climate model is used to evaluate possible consequences of the Joule heating induced by the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field (IMF)
elements on the ozone concentration and dynamics of the Earth atmosphere. The Joule heating rates in the stratosphere are parameterized on the basis of the time
series of the solar wind and IMF parameters taken from the NASA database for 1996. The results of the 15-year-long model run with the additional Joule source of heat are compared with the output of the unperturbed (control) 20- year-long model run. Both simulations are performed in steady-state mode with prescribed boundary conditions and for the minimum of the 11-year solar cycle. The most significant changes were found in the lower stratosphere of the Northern Hemisphere (NH). The NH lower stratospheric temperature increases by 1-3 K almost throughout the whole year with the significance level at 95% or higher. During boreal summer the changes of the ozone concentration are anti-correlated with the temperature as expected from the gas phase photochemical theory.
During boreal autumn and spring the variations of the ozone mixing ratio can be affected also by the alteration of the meridional circulation in the stratosphere. In the
Southern Hemisphere (SH) the additional Joule heating leads to a significant increase of the stratospheric temperature for the austral winter (~2K). The most substantial SH ozone changes (~10%) are found in the lower stratosphere during the austral spring.
I am very poor at math so mathematical models scare me, especially when it comes to their predicting my health, wealth and well-being. Recently, two separate super computer models (Indiana & Northwestern) were in complete agreement as to the likely spread of the H1N1 virus in the USA, and were wrong by a log of 3. Several respected super computer models (MIT comes to mind) predicted the behavior of financial derivatives, and these models were wrong. Super computer models, 20 I believe, appear to drive the alarm from global warming and yet had not predicted the last 2 years satellite measured global cooling. My query then, has there been any model of climate change which predicted global temperatures over the last dozen or so years with or without factoring in CO2? Thank you.
RiHo08,
“My query then, has there been any model of climate change which predicted global temperatures over the last dozen or so years with or without factoring in CO2? Thank you.”
There hasn’t been, but if one of the AR4 models had managed to, it would have been as wrong and meaningless as any of the models that managed to do it with CO2. All the AR4 models managed to reproduce less than one-third to one-half the increase in precipitation observed in the recent warming (Wentz), all had positive surface albedo biases (per Roesch) and none managed to produced the amplitude of the solar cycle response seen in the observations (per Camp and Tung).
Your skepticism of mathmatical models is especially well placed when it comes to a nonlinear dynamic system like the climate. These are the type of systems characterized by the “butterfly effect”, but in the case of these models we aren’t worried about butterflies, but about errors larger than the energy imbalance we are trying to attribute. And with correlated errors, statistically combining ensembles of results can’t be assumed to improve their reliability. With more years of model development and more years of modern data to validate them with, perhaps the models will be useful for more than just qualitative insight. In a nonlinear dynamic system getting some statistic, like average temperature trend “right”, in the wrong way, just doesn’t count.
Leif Svalgaard (14:02:01) :
The increase is so minute that it is almost unobservable. Only one or two of the strongest X-ray flares have been barely observed ever to have a tiny effect on TSI: http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/Chree_Analysis_for_Flares
Let’s put it in this way, the hen is the means by which the egg reproduces itself. We could have a flare which energy is so low that it is almost unobservable through human tech; however, the magnitude of the effect doesn’t depend on our abilities on observing it. As an association, we couldn’t observe the differences of the UV reflected by the flowers and all the same we can taste the honeybee.
The orbital effects on insolation would be the bigger effect and climate as well. With many clouds [especially at high latitudes] climate itself may be an even bigger influence on the insolation, and last buy not least, the TSI changes are so minute that they cannot be observed with the error expected for the grain analysis. So, again, for the umpteenth time, you have not shown that anybody can measure TSI with the precision required from the iron grains. If you can, I’ll recommend that NASA don’t put up any more satellites to measure TSI, I’ll keep a few grains in my backyard and send them the resulting high-quality data in real time.
Leif… Where did I say that the precision for measuring TSI from the examination of iron stained quartz is better than direct measurements? The examination of iron stained grains is a proxy which could give us an idea on the intensity of TSI in epochs when there were not satellites; not even there were humans. The package doesn’t come with solitary iron stained grains, there are other proxies as fossils, Beryllium, Calcium, etc., which improve our ability to understand approximately how the Sun was functioning; if not, at least how much solar radiation was striking on the surface of the ground (insolation).
which has nothing to do with TSI either, but may introduce noise in the iron grain data to mask whatever minute solar signal you claim there is.
And for umpteenth time I ask you, where did I say the TSI has to do with the geomagnetic field? I wrote:
“…consider that even when the iron stained grains are proxies for calculating insolation, the intensity of the incident solar radiation on the ground surface increases if the solar radiation increases from the Sun (TSI), so the production of iron stained grains. Especially, when considering that the geomagnetic field also experiences changes through time.”
The last paragraph, “Especially, when considering that the geomagnetic field also experiences changes through time” is connected to the phrase “so the production of iron stained grains.”